Artist Template

	Your Mother Should Know Recordings The Truth about the United States' Policy on Climate Change By Wes Golomb
Trade List YMSK Journal Homegrown Music Copyright and Trade E-Mail Links	Across the rest of the globe the Kyoto Accords went into effect this spring. This means the world, minus the United States, will begin to take some small steps toward limiting emissions believed to cause global warming. Last fall we reelected George Bush, reaffirming this country's ignorance of Kyoto. Global Warming cannot be confronted by a vote. There is an ultimate reality which exists independent of human opinion. Using gravity as an analogy, we could all get together and vote that the laws of gravity are non-existent, however that would not effect the objective reality. If you held a rock over your head after such a vote on gravity, it would still come smashing down on you. There is ample evidence for global warming but the Bush administration ignores that evidence. The devil is in the details, in this case the details of a Global Warming Model designed by William Nordhaus and embraced by the Bush administration. His model, in my opinion, makes several erroneous assumptions, among them are the following: 1. That Utility (that's economic speak for general happiness of the population) is increased with population growth. This means that the more people on the planet, (each demanding more resources and producing more pollution) the happier we will all be. More people competing for the same limited resources makes us better off, does this make sense to you? 2. That utility is increased with increased consumption of material goods. The more 'stuff' we have, the happier we will be. At the center of this assumption is the idea that more stuff will make us all happier. I question this assumption on two grounds. First it is not clear to me that the accumulation of materal goods makes people happier. And secondly, this assumption ignores the fact that increased consumption has significant ecological costs associated with it. These are the costs of getting and using diminishing resources (including the cost of sending armies around the globe to protect 'our' oil- which is the real reason we are in Iraq), as well as the costs to us all of the pollution associated with using these resources. 3. Nordhaus' model assumes a 3% discount rate. This assumption means assumes the devaluation of life in the future at a rate of 3% per year. If you accept this assumption you are saying that the value of life NOW is high, but the value of life is insignificant in a generation or so. If you assume a value to life of 1 and run the numbers at a 3% discount rate you will see that this assumption means that in 25 years the value of life will be 48 % of current value , in 50 years 22%, in 75 years the value will be 10 % and in 139 years the value will be 1%. Think carefully about the above assumptions, do they make sense to you? Should we be pursuing a policy that assumes that our best course of action is to pack the planet with as many people that can fit on it? Do you believe that more material goods is the path to happiness for all? Do you believe that your life is worth more than your children's or grandchildren's lives? Using the above assumptions, this model comes to the conclusion that it is not worth it to spend money now to avoid global warming. How could it come to any other conclusion, no matter what the objective reality of climate change is when it devalues life in the future so drastically? The bottom line assumption of the anti Kyoto crowd is that in the short term we would lose jobs and face economic hardship if we cut back on our greenhouse gas emissions. These assumptions are challenged by a study commissioned by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) "Economically Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential in New England," which states that potential remains for huge energy efficiency savings with a NET ECONOMIC GAIN to New England: here is a link for you to read if you're interested. http://www.neep.org/files/Full_Report.pdf The Bush anti Kyoto accords stance is based on the short term interests of a very few rich American men. It is consistent with other Bush policies which favor a few rich people (in the short term only) over the rest of the population. An overwhelming majority of scientists around the world believe there is evidence that global warming is occurring. Most of these believe that at some point in the future there will be a catastrophic event related to global warming. The few "scientists' who tell us otherwise seem to all have connections to energy companies with a clear axe to grind. Given the facts, the truly conservative thing to do would be to cutback greenhouse gas emissions immediately. Humans are more important than corporate profits and we as citizens need to stand up and say the Bush administration that this policy IS NOT acceptable.

Your Mother Should Know
Recordings

The Truth about the United States' Policy on Climate Change

By Wes Golomb

Across the rest of the globe the Kyoto Accords went into effect this spring. This means the world, minus the United States, will begin to take some small steps toward limiting emissions believed to cause global warming. Last fall we reelected George Bush, reaffirming this country's ignorance of Kyoto. Global Warming cannot be confronted by a vote. There is an ultimate reality which exists independent of human opinion. Using gravity as an analogy, we could all get together and vote that the laws of gravity are non-existent, however that would not effect the objective reality. If you held a rock over your head after such a vote on gravity, it would still come smashing down on you.

There is ample evidence for global warming but the Bush administration ignores that evidence. The devil is in the details, in this case the details of a Global Warming Model designed by William Nordhaus and embraced by the Bush administration. His model, in my opinion, makes several erroneous assumptions, among them are the following:

1. That Utility (that's economic speak for general happiness of the population) is increased with population growth. This means that the more people on the planet, (each demanding more resources and producing more pollution) the happier we will all be. More people competing for the same limited resources makes us better off, does this make sense to you?

2. That utility is increased with increased consumption of material goods. The more 'stuff' we have, the happier we will be. At the center of this assumption is the idea that more stuff will make us all happier. I question this assumption on two grounds. First it is not clear to me that the accumulation of materal goods makes people happier. And secondly, this assumption ignores the fact that increased consumption has significant ecological costs associated with it. These are the costs of getting and using diminishing resources (including the cost of sending armies around the globe to protect 'our' oil- which is the real reason we are in Iraq), as well as the costs to us all of the pollution associated with using these resources.

3. Nordhaus' model assumes a 3% discount rate. This assumption means assumes the devaluation of life in the future at a rate of 3% per year. If you accept this assumption you are saying that the value of life NOW is high, but the value of life is insignificant in a generation or so. If you assume a value to life of 1 and run the numbers at a 3% discount rate you will see that this assumption means that in 25 years the value of life will be 48 % of current value , in 50 years 22%, in 75 years the value will be 10 % and in 139 years the value will be 1%. Think carefully about the above assumptions, do they make sense to you? Should we be pursuing a policy that assumes that our best course of action is to pack the planet with as many people that can fit on it? Do you believe that more material goods is the path to happiness for all? Do you believe that your life is worth more than your children's or grandchildren's lives?

Using the above assumptions, this model comes to the conclusion that it is not worth it to spend money now to avoid global warming. How could it come to any other conclusion, no matter what the objective reality of climate change is when it devalues life in the future so drastically? The bottom line assumption of the anti Kyoto crowd is that in the short term we would lose jobs and face economic hardship if we cut back on our greenhouse gas emissions. These assumptions are challenged by a study commissioned by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) "Economically Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential in New England," which states that potential remains for huge energy efficiency savings with a NET ECONOMIC GAIN to New England: here is a link for you to read if you're interested. http://www.neep.org/files/Full_Report.pdf

The Bush anti Kyoto accords stance is based on the short term interests of a very few rich American men. It is consistent with other Bush policies which favor a few rich people (in the short term only) over the rest of the population. An overwhelming majority of scientists around the world believe there is evidence that global warming is occurring. Most of these believe that at some point in the future there will be a catastrophic event related to global warming. The few "scientists' who tell us otherwise seem to all have connections to energy companies with a clear axe to grind. Given the facts, the truly conservative thing to do would be to cutback greenhouse gas emissions immediately. Humans are more important than corporate profits and we as citizens need to stand up and say the Bush administration that this policy IS NOT acceptable.